The Bears’ 23-16 loss to the Packers on Sunday had fans trading in their foam fingers for pitchforks. All the positives during the first half of the season and the cautious optimism exiting the bye week yielded to the same old frustration and ire.

Coach John Fox’s job security will now dominate the citywide Bears conversation for the next seven weeks. But the season moves on. The Bears will, in fact, meet the Lions at Soldier Field on Sunday.

So what did we learn about the Bears in the cold rain after they had two weeks to prepare? What are the takeaways from their failure as a 5-point favorite against the Aaron Rodgers-less Packers? Tribune Bears reporters Rich Campbell and Dan Wiederer break it down in this week’s edition of “Real Talk.”

Rich Campbell: The word I use to describe Sunday’s game, Dan, is “familiar.” We saw the underwhelming version of the Bears — from the coaching staff down — that we’ve come to know well. A critical replay challenge that didn’t require hindsight to know was ill-advised. An offense that beats itself with negative plays in the form of penalties, runs and sacks. And a defense that was undisciplined in its pass rush at decisive moments and failed to take the ball away.

Afterward, Fox trumpeted the Bears' competitiveness in all but two games. Four of their six losses have been by 8 points or less. But my initial response to that is: OK? They're still 3-6.

To me, the close losses provide evidence that the team consistently doesn’t handle its details or get everyone doing the right thing at the same time. To use your phrase from three seasons ago, the bolts are still too loose.

Dan Wiederer: Familiar is a strong word but dead on. Sunday was indeed all too familiar. Familiar in that it was the Bears’ 26th loss to the Packers in 37 meetings this century. Familiar in that it was their 12th division loss (and counting) during the John Fox era. Familiar in that it kept the Bears locked in the NFC North basement by themselves with dwindling hope that they can escape this season.

Sunday was familiar in that it took only one sloppy and disjointed performance to obliterate a sense of hope that had been building for much of the last two months. Familiar in that it again exposed the Bears as pretenders when it comes to legitimate playoff hopes.

Photos from the Bears-Packers game at Soldier Field on Nov. 12, 2017.

Fox can assert all he wants that Sunday’s stumble was only one loss, that overreaction is impractical and that a home win this weekend over the Lions could quickly get the Bears back on track. But a coach with a .293 winning percentage during his time in Chicago is well past “benefit of the doubt” stage. Now he’ll have to fight just to keep the locker room’s attention with seven games left and his office chair sizzling.

Campbell: The circumstances of the loss undercut that rationale, at least to me. The Bears were favored, rested, playing against Brett Hundley and, eventually, third-string running back Jamaal Williams. If the Bears beat the Lions, we could revisit this with an open mind. But even in that case, why should anyone believe the next stumble isn’t just around the corner?

The Bears are built to play close games. More accurately, they’re built to lose close games, given their quarterback’s inexperience, their undermanned receiving corps, their injuries and other well-documented shortcomings.

Wiederer: That’s where Fox loses the masses, with this frequent crutch that, hey, even though it was a loss, it was a game the Bears almost-maybe-coulda won. After Sunday’s game, our colleague Brad Biggs called that “the ultimate loser’s lament.” You can’t be an ultra-conservative coach, swim only in the shallow end of the pool with a life preserver on and then shout, “Hey Mom! Did you see that? At least I’m not drowning!”

So much of this feels similar to the Dick Jauron era where the Bears’ top priority often seemed to be hanging around in close games with a push to win decisively as an afterthought. Jauron caught lightning in a bottle in 2001 with a 13-3 charge to the division title. But he sandwiched that fun between four other losing seasons that produced a 22-42 record and a number of maddening “just missed” defeats.

As you’ve heard me recount before, Jauron’s most mystifying show of caution may have come in a win in Tampa during that 2001 joyride. After the Bears surged ahead by 15 points in the third quarter, they played not to lose for the rest of the game. Their fear of disaster culminated with the offense taking three knees on its final possession without the ability to run out the clock. Rather than risk a turnover, try a field goal or even punt the ball away, Jauron gave the Buccaneers the ball back at their own 32 with 18 seconds left. After two Brad Johnson completions, the Bears survived only after Martin Gramatica banged a 48-yard game-tying field goal attempt off the right upright.

Still, for me, the moral of that story was proven so many other times during those five Jauron-led seasons: play not to lose every week and that’s what you’ll end up doing the majority of the time.

Sorry for the trip down memory lane. Sorry for the deja vu.

Campbell: Apologize for a Martin Gramatica reference? I refuse to accept it.

In Sunday’s case, it wasn’t as much Fox’s conservative strategy as it was mistakes. Offensively, the Bears continue to beat themselves. Among their 35 first-half plays were five negative runs, three sacks and a lost fumble at the Packers 2-yard line (and the replay challenge that brought it to light). They also had four offensive penalties enforced against them, including three false starts. Two false starts were on consecutive snaps.

Mitch Trubisky was sacked a season-high five times and looked every bit a rookie making his fifth career start. There were enough flashes to keep us coming back — the 46-yard touchdown pass to Josh Bellamy, for example — but more instances in which Trubisky didn’t get rid of the ball on time or recognize an open receiver. The growing pains are painful.

Wiederer: Once again, after the game, Trubisky reiterated his emphasis on protecting the football. And Fox offered praise that the rookie took sacks rather than throwing interceptions or losing fumbles. So I’d argue that the conservative philosophy was noticeable, at least on occasion, in Sunday’s loss. And the Bears have to hope they don’t reach the end of this season with their prized quarterback conditioned to be so fearful of turnovers that he is no longer confident taking chances. That’s a real risk.

There’s also a direct line of questioning in the hopper this week for coordinator Dowell Loggains, whose assertion in Week 7 that Tarik Cohen was the offense’s best playmaker wasn’t backed up Sunday with Cohen getting only two touches and, worse, standing on the sidelines for 78 percent of the Bears’ snaps.

So help me figure out these pressing questions, Rich. Why wasn’t Cohen used more Sunday? What in the world is now wrong with Kyle Long? What signs do you see that there’s a playoff-caliber offense waiting to breakthrough? And, probably most important of all, with the playoffs out of reach, with the head coach looking more and more like a lame duck, with the fan base feeling burned and frustrated and veering toward apathy again, how will this team find true meaning in the final seven games?

“Getting him on the field is something I think our guys do,” he said, contrary to Cohen playing his second-lowest single-game percentage of snaps this season. “He's still one of our leading receivers on the season. We went through a stretch there where maybe we didn't throw it as much as some people. But he's involved quite bit. Defenses are doing more to take him away. … The key is that we move the ball and it has been a struggle. But I don't know that that's the reason.”

If you can find a sound explanation in that answer, you’re better at deciphering Fox-speak than I am.

As for Long, the Bears are banged up right now. If they didn’t have six other injured players on the inactive list Sunday, maybe Long wouldn’t have been active. His mangled left pinkie was pretty gnarly after the Saints game, but I think we’re all wondering how his shoulder is holding up. Let’s see if he’s up against the Lions. The Bears sure need him.

And, to answer your other two questions: Nobody ever said anything about a playoff-caliber offense. That’s not reality. And finding meaning in the last seven games begins with beating the Lions on Sunday.

Wiederer: Unless the Bears hammer the Lions 50-3 this weekend, a victory will elicit a “Whatever” reaction more than a “Wow!”

Many moons ago, in the middle stages of this depressing free-fall, we laid out a simple litmus test for measuring the Bears’ leaguewide relevance. It was a straightforward challenge: win three games in a row and we can begin to take any talk of a resurgence seriously. No reason to soften that standard now. Heck, even putting together multiple two-game winning streaks in the same season would qualify as progress. That’s why, this deep into a rebuild, it seems like it’d take a Christmas miracle for Fox to keep his job into 2018.

Sunday’s loss wasn’t just a loss to the Packers. It was a home loss to the Packers. It was a home loss to the Aaron Rodgers-less Packers. It was a home loss to the Aaron Rodgers-less Packers who were also without starting right tackle Bryan Bulaga and later lost running backs Aaron Jones and Ty Montgomery.

Turns out the Bears remain who we thought they were, a last-place team that has long since forgotten what big December games feel like. Sunday’s setback wasn’t just one loss. It was a sobering reminder of a faltering franchise’s irrelevance.